You seriously have to question why it is a good idea (as some people have commented) to have two leaders of nationalist parties of their respective country's in government with a guy who cant speak properly representing our interests on a day to day basis. This will spell nothing but bad news for the UK, but more importantly England, the biggest and most productive nation in the UK in which I am sure 99% of people on this board work and live.
Why is it when Farage pipes up about the UK's interest in leaving Europe and speaks about protecting the UK from migrants he is branded a racist, yet Wood and Sturgeon can bleat about Wales and Scotland's interests all day long and be hailed heroes?? Yes Farage isn't the most articulate or intelligent person, but he is unfairly portrayed by the media and the leaders of other parties.
I am not a UKIP voter, I am right now undecided having been a cons voter my entire life.
Farage isn't branded a racist he IS one, when the cameras are not on him he is not as "charming" he almost showed his true colours last night when he attacked the audience and then was the only one to not greet and thank the audience at the end, you could see him boiling with anger last night.
Farage is accused of being a racist because people either can't spell or don't know the meaning of the word Xenophobe, which is a much better and fairer description of him. I don't think he is a racist. I think he was playing to his core support last night, but they are not the majority of the population, so blaming immigration on everything was wearing a bit thin with the audience. I think he would have got a similar reaction with an audience of centre left Tories. He could have made the point about what he is saying resonating with people at home without accusing the BBC and audience of being left wing. What he says does resonate as a fair number of people say there are too many foriegners in the country. The problem is, I havent found one yet who knows how many there are and how many they think there should be - apart from those that say zero, or who can put a figure on how much money it costs the country - when we know immigration makes a net positive contribution. Whilst, Farage is not a racist, he does pander to baser instincts - Hitler got some success with this tactic blaming the jews for everything that was wrong with Germany. Hitler was a racist though. Farage definitely is not and is also not hell bent on world domination to be fair.
Tell that to the 4 guys who work for me earning more money than they ever have due to the flexibility l have to control my costs due to supply and demand, it needs better control not removal, and by getting more kids with degrees having to join an agency so I get to see their potential rather than take a minimal risk on zero hr is also wrong, there are two sides to each issue and good luck to someone going to work via an agency where they can only get 11 weeks work in the same business before you have to let them go, and still won't know their working week to enable them to plan their life or move forward in their lifestyle
You seriously have to question why it is a good idea (as some people have commented) to have two leaders of nationalist parties of their respective country's in government with a guy who cant speak properly representing our interests on a day to day basis. This will spell nothing but bad news for the UK, but more importantly England, the biggest and most productive nation in the UK in which I am sure 99% of people on this board work and live.
Why is it when Farage pipes up about the UK's interest in leaving Europe and speaks about protecting the UK from migrants he is branded a racist, yet Wood and Sturgeon can bleat about Wales and Scotland's interests all day long and be hailed heroes?? Yes Farage isn't the most articulate or intelligent person, but he is unfairly portrayed by the media and the leaders of other parties.
I am not a UKIP voter, I am right now undecided having been a cons voter my entire life.
Farage isn't branded a racist he IS one, when the cameras are not on him he is not as "charming" he almost showed his true colours last night when he attacked the audience and then was the only one to not greet and thank the audience at the end, you could see him boiling with anger last night.
He didn't have a love in with the lovies at the conclusion as he has been completely frozen out by all of them. Its childish bulling tactics from all of the parties. It was embarrassing to see Milliband try and get in on that at the end, a man so desperate for a job he will sell his own party morals and beliefs to the scots. Also, given the recent libel judgement made today by the Oystens against one of their supporters, I would be very careful about who you brand a racist in an open public forum. Unless you have concrete evidence you can't accuse someone of it and if it existed, he wouldn't be the leader of the third biggest political party in this kingdom. I agree it was a terrible comment regarding the audience, he should have known it was appointed by an independent authority (who had a further lefty position than the BBC typically does, which was convenient given that 4 out of the 5 participating parties have lefty positions).
If they removed zero hr for me to use as a business then 4 guys immediately are going to lose their jobs and be replaced with agency labour
Is doubt I am alone as a small business owner who woutd find themselves in the same position
The thing is NLA, as Sadie says, while it may be convenient for you as an employer to use zero hours contracts, an employee can't build a life on one, and very often the taxpayer is having to subsidise them with benefits. If you're a small business with very erratic patterns of work coming in at short notice, I can see how you can't guarantee a certain number of hours a week. However, for most businesses (such as home care staff, which is another contraversial sector) while you can't say exactly how much work you're going to have coming in, it's reasonably predictable within certain limits, so they should be employing the majority of staff on permanent defined hours contracts, and using overtime or extra casual staff for the periods of heavy unexpected demand. And there is absolutely no excuse for shops that have fixed hours like Sports Direct to be using them FFS! It's just lazy management trying to avoid giving staff the appropriate rights that they would get on permanent contracts and not bothering to sort out proper staffing levels and rotas.
Personally I think if a company wants to employ staff on a zero hours contract, they should have to pay a premium on top of the employers national insurance contribution, as a contribution towards the benefits the staff receive to top up their income when they don't get enough hours to live on. And the more staff a company has on zero hours, the larger that premium should be, as a disincentive to employ people on zero hours when they don't need to (see Sports Direct). That way the business can have the extra flexibility if it REALLY needs it, but at its own expense, not at the expense of the well-being of its staff.
You seriously have to question why it is a good idea (as some people have commented) to have two leaders of nationalist parties of their respective country's in government with a guy who cant speak properly representing our interests on a day to day basis. This will spell nothing but bad news for the UK, but more importantly England, the biggest and most productive nation in the UK in which I am sure 99% of people on this board work and live.
Why is it when Farage pipes up about the UK's interest in leaving Europe and speaks about protecting the UK from migrants he is branded a racist, yet Wood and Sturgeon can bleat about Wales and Scotland's interests all day long and be hailed heroes?? Yes Farage isn't the most articulate or intelligent person, but he is unfairly portrayed by the media and the leaders of other parties.
I am not a UKIP voter, I am right now undecided having been a cons voter my entire life.
Farage isn't branded a racist he IS one, when the cameras are not on him he is not as "charming" he almost showed his true colours last night when he attacked the audience and then was the only one to not greet and thank the audience at the end, you could see him boiling with anger last night.
Spot On - Poundland Enoch let the mask slip last night and no mistake - Now we have now seen that his true persona is as unpleasant as his politics. Racist and extreme.
One of my favourite political Twitter accounts is Mike Smithson who analyses political betting odds. Although a L/D supporter I have found his site to be impartial and intriguing
You seriously have to question why it is a good idea (as some people have commented) to have two leaders of nationalist parties of their respective country's in government with a guy who cant speak properly representing our interests on a day to day basis. This will spell nothing but bad news for the UK, but more importantly England, the biggest and most productive nation in the UK in which I am sure 99% of people on this board work and live.
Why is it when Farage pipes up about the UK's interest in leaving Europe and speaks about protecting the UK from migrants he is branded a racist, yet Wood and Sturgeon can bleat about Wales and Scotland's interests all day long and be hailed heroes?? Yes Farage isn't the most articulate or intelligent person, but he is unfairly portrayed by the media and the leaders of other parties.
I am not a UKIP voter, I am right now undecided having been a cons voter my entire life.
Farage isn't branded a racist he IS one, when the cameras are not on him he is not as "charming" he almost showed his true colours last night when he attacked the audience and then was the only one to not greet and thank the audience at the end, you could see him boiling with anger last night.
He didn't have a love in with the lovies at the conclusion as he has been completely frozen out by all of them. Its childish bulling tactics from all of the parties. It was embarrassing to see Milliband try and get in on that at the end, a man so desperate for a job he will sell his own party morals and beliefs to the scots. Also, given the recent libel judgement made today by the Oystens against one of their supporters, I would be very careful about who you brand a racist in an open public forum. Unless you have concrete evidence you can't accuse someone of it and if it existed, he wouldn't be the leader of the third biggest political party in this kingdom. I agree it was a terrible comment regarding the audience, he should have known it was appointed by an independent authority (who had a further lefty position than the BBC typically does, which was convenient given that 4 out of the 5 participating parties have lefty positions).
Ok you accept Farage shouldn't have turned on the audience and BBC but found Milliband embaressing!!! Last night, I thought he was pretty clear about his position in relation to the SNP and it is not the same position the Tories or you want to suggest. Of course the SNP have a lot of similarities with Labour and may vote together on social issue policies - that isn't the same as getting into bed with them. I sense desperation is creeping into the Tories as they are aiming their punches quite low at the moment. I think debate is good, but scaremongering on Trident and SNP is below the belt stuff and will not do them any good. Scaremongering on Trident is particularly bad, as it means both parties are more likely to commit to it so as not to seem weak, even if a cheaper option is or becomes available. We are talking about £100b here that could be spent on better services or tax cuts depending on your leanings. As both parties are pro Trident, they should agree to keep this away from the election debate.
btw - Trident is a nuclear deterrent. So the point is,if you have to use it, it has failed. It will cost £100b. This money would be enough to fully fund A&E services for 40 years, employ 150,000 new nurses, build 1.5 million affordable homes, build 30,000 new primary schools, or cover tuition fees for 4 million students. So I think both major parties should have a look at options. I agree with having a deterrent, but how about paying the Americans £10b to agree (signed etc...) that if a country nukes us, they will 100% nuke that country (which they probably would anyway) in retaliation with their own version of Trident. The only downside would be if the Americans nuked us, but for £90b it is probably worth the risk! They might even do it for less!
This is just one idea, I'm sure both parties could come up with others that provided the same security for much less if they worked together on this one. This idea would work well for teh Americans too, as they could offer the service to a few of their close friendly nations and subsidise their own defence programme.
This is the problem with our political system. The differences/options are not that great. Basically you chose between two capitalist parties. One who prioritises the rich, the other the not so rich workers. Neither want to alienate each group too much though. Both are looking to cut the deficit - and make cuts outside of protected areas. I support Labour because they are more about fairness, but I don't think they are perfect. But If we had real choices that true PR would give us, we could actually vote for what we believed in. They fight for the same ground and this allows stupid schemes like HS2 and Trident to get through. But there are better, cheaper alternatives to both!
100 billion over 25/30 years according to Grant Chapps (spelling)
So we could fully fund A&E for 40 years instead. And have some change. I'm going to form a party that will give people a nurse each to themselves when they go to hospital after I have scrapped Trident. But I won't tell anybody I have scrapped it, so it will still be a deterrent lol.
Tridents not going to protect a soul from a rucksack full of explosives or a group of Mumbai style gunmen in a shopping centre.
That is an excellent point. Possibly our biggest threat is being nuked by British citizens. Trident would be pretty useless here, we can't use it to nuke Leeds, London or Birmingham!!!
decomissioning trident is so ridiculously short sighted. Who knows what dangers this country will face in the decades to come. Nuclear weapons exist. It's a hard fact of life. We need to arm ourselves to protect ourselves. All it takes is one country to start stockpiling again and the cold war reignites and we're wasting billions on arming ourselves with nuclear weapons. May as well have it than not.
if the Russians nuked us tomorrow, does anybody not think it would start a nuclear war?
its not just nuking us. It's invading us. Or, sorry, "rebels" springing up in the uk.
If they invade us, Trident wont do much good as it does not discriminate who it kills, so if it is used we would all die in the resultin nuclear war! If being invaded concerns you, you could suggest the money that could be saved (but still providing a different nuclear deterrent) could be be used to halt cuts in our armed forces which have been pretty draconian of late.
if the Russians nuked us tomorrow, does anybody not think it would start a nuclear war?
its not just nuking us. It's invading us. Or, sorry, "rebels" springing up in the uk.
If they invade us, Trident wont do much good as it does not discriminate who it kills, so if it is used we would all die! If being invaded concerns you, you could suggest the money that could be saved (but still providing a different nuclear deterrent) could be be used to halt cuts in our armed forces which have been pretty draconian of late.
If we were invaded, I don't think it would involve Russian soldiers storming the beach at Ramsgit!
They'd more than likely ping a couple of misiles our way; Trident is there as a deterent so that they think we'll give back at em, or intercept the ones coming our way.
if the Russians nuked us tomorrow, does anybody not think it would start a nuclear war?
its not just nuking us. It's invading us. Or, sorry, "rebels" springing up in the uk.
If they invade us, Trident wont do much good as it does not discriminate who it kills, so if it is used we would all die! If being invaded concerns you, you could suggest the money that could be saved (but still providing a different nuclear deterrent) could be be used to halt cuts in our armed forces which have been pretty draconian of late.
I'm not sure what invasions your thinking of where there's been no civilian casualty... It's a deterrent. Any deterrent for people to invade this country is a good thing. It's mind blowing people seem to think now that we have nuclear technology absolutely everyone will just pinky promise not to have them or ever to use them again. Any deterrent to stop people using nuclear weapons is a good thing. That includes having them.
There is without doubt abuse to what is a very good idea and as with all good ideas there are people who will take advantage, to add in extra costs isn't the answer and still no one can tell me where or how these people will then gain their employment, the only solution is can see is to get agency labour who will not earn the money themselves the agency will earn from them, they can't work in a consistent place for more than 11 weeks before having to leave for a period of time, to ban something out right with no solution to why the thing was introduced in the first place is extremely short sighted and very dangerous to the economy, the same time as doing this the biggest need to many is a higher hrly wage this will hinder that also, what will happen 100% is businesses will either become not viable with their current costs, will increase them the client will either accept and pass them on to its customers or the supplier will go under, not all businesses make huge profits to get rich quick and the margins are so tight to enable remaining competitive, for a country that is just showing the signs of turning the corner financially had huge unemployment reaching record highs only a very few years ago, I amazed that so many people can't give a decent solution as to what is the replacement scheme to be put in place before its banned, so far the fact someone says, no zero hrs, higher minimum wage and build more houses all at the expense of tax payers and will without another solution to fund it that it makes it very understandable as to how we ended up in the mess we did, not the posters on here who support it but the lack of a solution to a problem before they create another by making decisions based on spending more money
Tridents not going to protect a soul from a rucksack full of explosives or a group of Mumbai style gunmen in a shopping centre.
no. But it might stop the ruskis from rolling over here!
Agree kentaddick, I'm certainly concerned about Putin's stance and the rise of Russian nationalism but I do feel that that the financial cost of Trident is disproportionate to the threat currently posed. I personally feel that the biggest, most imminent threat to our nations citizens is from homegrown terrorism and I'd prefer MI5 be given everything they need to counteract that.
If it's truly about deterrent how come France or the Netherlands or Sweden aren't spending that much to protect their citizens?
Comments
Personally I think if a company wants to employ staff on a zero hours contract, they should have to pay a premium on top of the employers national insurance contribution, as a contribution towards the benefits the staff receive to top up their income when they don't get enough hours to live on. And the more staff a company has on zero hours, the larger that premium should be, as a disincentive to employ people on zero hours when they don't need to (see Sports Direct). That way the business can have the extra flexibility if it REALLY needs it, but at its own expense, not at the expense of the well-being of its staff.
I suggest the following two sites .Tory donor Lord Ashcroft has done some interesting polling which he has made publically available .
Today his Scottish poll makes grim reading for all of the Unionist parties but particularly Labour
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/
One of my favourite political Twitter accounts is Mike Smithson who analyses political betting odds. Although a L/D supporter I have found his site to be impartial and intriguing
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB.
This is just one idea, I'm sure both parties could come up with others that provided the same security for much less if they worked together on this one. This idea would work well for teh Americans too, as they could offer the service to a few of their close friendly nations and subsidise their own defence programme.
"Can I touch you there""Always be prepared"They'd more than likely ping a couple of misiles our way; Trident is there as a deterent so that they think we'll give back at em, or intercept the ones coming our way.
There is without doubt abuse to what is a very good idea and as with all good ideas there are people who will take advantage, to add in extra costs isn't the answer and still no one can tell me where or how these people will then gain their employment, the only solution is can see is to get agency labour who will not earn the money themselves the agency will earn from them, they can't work in a consistent place for more than 11 weeks before having to leave for a period of time, to ban something out right with no solution to why the thing was introduced in the first place is extremely short sighted and very dangerous to the economy, the same time as doing this the biggest need to many is a higher hrly wage this will hinder that also, what will happen 100% is businesses will either become not viable with their current costs, will increase them the client will either accept and pass them on to its customers or the supplier will go under, not all businesses make huge profits to get rich quick and the margins are so tight to enable remaining competitive, for a country that is just showing the signs of turning the corner financially had huge unemployment reaching record highs only a very few years ago, I amazed that so many people can't give a decent solution as to what is the replacement scheme to be put in place before its banned, so far the fact someone says, no zero hrs, higher minimum wage and build more houses all at the expense of tax payers and will without another solution to fund it that it makes it very understandable as to how we ended up in the mess we did, not the posters on here who support it but the lack of a solution to a problem before they create another by making decisions based on spending more money
Agree kentaddick, I'm certainly concerned about Putin's stance and the rise of Russian nationalism but I do feel that that the financial cost of Trident is disproportionate to the threat currently posed. I personally feel that the biggest, most imminent threat to our nations citizens is from homegrown terrorism and I'd prefer MI5 be given everything they need to counteract that.
If it's truly about deterrent how come France or the Netherlands or Sweden aren't spending that much to protect their citizens?